| |
BGonline.org Forums
61&-32, 63&-32, 61W-32, 63W-32
Posted By: Ian Shaw In Response To: 61&-32, 63&-32, 61W-32, 63W-32 (Nack Ballard)
Date: Wednesday, 4 January 2012, at 1:13 p.m.
For 63W-32 I like Z (24/22 13/10) because it threatens the naked 8 point and duplicates White's 3s. $ (13/10 64) has merit because of the triplication - and should be superior to 13/11 8/5 for that reason - but it loses ground when you get hit. I have a blind spot when it comes to hitting on the ace, and overlooked it OTB. It takes away 61 and 63 from White's covering numbers, which both play very well if Blue does not hit. On reflection, I concur that hitting is best.
After 61W the significant difference from 63W is that White can now use 3s to cover the five point without losing the eight point, so splitting gains less. Counter-slotting can be an effective tactic, and I would try it here: 13/10 6/4.
White's double-slot plays, 61& and 63&, maintain the back anchor so Blue can not hit with the 32. Again, the significant difference between the two is that 63& strips the eight point while 61& does not.
In contrast to the Wild plays, Blue's 1s are no longer direct shots, and White is threatening to build a strong board, with 1 2 4 6 all working to make points. Furthermore, White has nine chequers in the zone after & instead of 8 after W; they are flexibly distributed and give White the option to attack should Blue split. Blue needs to be more cautious about splitting, so should look for a priming approach - he can build some points while White is busy. (Blue can reconsider the split once White has made some points, which will reduce her attacking options.) 13/10 8/4 looks best in both cases. 13/10 13/11 should be closer after 63& because the duplication of White's 3s are not quite so effective.
In summary: 6W&-32$; 61W-32$, 61&-32$, 63&-32$.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.